Formula One 2014

[Kinks]

The FIA should just stick a 30psi electronic release valve on everyones inlet manifold and be done with it

emphasis mine.. that's what got us into this mess in the first place, electronics! What's to say that one team's sensor is 29.998psi and another team's is 30.002psi?

just put a restrictor in to limit airflow. At least machining tolerances are so straightforward to measure that there can't be any argument. this whole fuel sensor thing stinks, I hope RBR get vindicated but it will be interesting to see the transcript of the appeal.

[hrd-hr30]

well, we're about to find out just how confident RBR are about their method being more accurate than the FIA's sensor + offsets. If they truly believe they are in the right, they will continue run both cars based on their fuel flow calculations this weekend and probably be disqualified from both qualy and race results... If they fall into line with all the other teams and comply with the Technical Directive, we'll know they aren't at all sure they're going to win the appeal.

[Roy]

I could go on and on, but the picture is pretty obvious - FIA Technical Directives are binding and a legitimate part of the regulations governing the sport. If you ignore them, you get disqualified...

Umm...still wrong. They are not binding. If in 2009 the FIA issued a technical directive banning double diffusers then Brawn woudl have been able to continue running them if they believe they complied to the technical regulations. If they were excluded from results and felt confident their car complied then the International Court of Appeals would have made a ruling on the technical regulations.

The examples you talk of like EBDs were not banned mid season under a Technical Directive. Remember what happened when they tried....teams like RBR were going to appeal and FIA knew that by the letter of the regulations they could have possibly lost at the International Court of Appeals so watered down subsequent Directives so that nothing really changed and teams were happy to run the year out. At the end of the year the new technical regulations ruled things out.

So its not a discussion of whether RBR were right or wrong. I suspect the are screwed. But its a matter of a Technical Directive can be contested if a team feels they are in compliance with the Technical Regulations and feel that the clarification of the Directive being different but equal to their interpretation of the regulation.

...anyway...

But since the

[hrd-hr30]

You have a strange definition of "not binding". RBR were disqualified for not complying with it FFS. Doesn't get any more binding than that.

It's like saying being found guilty of murder is not binding, because I can appeal it.

Edited March 26, 2014 by hrd-hr30

[hrd-hr30]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong?

Fuel flow meter is in the technical regulations:

Technical Directive 01614 provides the methodology by which the sensor will be used. It is not "just Charlie's opinion on things", it is a binding part of the regulation framework.

Thats wrong Harry

It is straight from the FIA's Steward's Decision;

"8) Technical Directive 01614 (1 March 2014) provides the methodology by which the sensor will be used..."

I could go on and on, but the picture is pretty obvious - FIA Technical Directives are binding and a legitimate part of the regulations governing the sport. If you ignore them, you get disqualified...

Umm...still wrong.

It is exactly what happened. RBR ignored the Technical Directive and they got disqualified. Refer to the Stewards' findings.

"Thus the Stewards find that:

A) The team chose to run the car using their fuel flow model, without direction from the FIA. This is a violation of the procedure within TD/ 016-14

B) That although the sensor showed a difference in readings between runs in P1, it remains the homologated and required sensor against which the team is obliged to measure their fuel flow, unless given permission by the FIA to do otherwise. (guess where that permission comes from? Yep, the Technical Directive)
C) The Stewards were satisfied by the explanation of the technical representative that by making an adjustment as instructed, the team could have run within the allowable fuel flow. (that adjustment procedure is outlined in the Technical Directive)
D) That regardless of the team’s assertion that the sensor was fault, it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA. (that permission comes from the Technical Directive too btw)"

There is no doubt whatsoever the reason they were disqualified is that they ignored Technical Directive 01614.

And if you end up disqualified because you didn't comply with something, guess what - you were bound to comply with it!

You can say I'm wrong as often as you like, it doesn't make it so...

Edited March 26, 2014 by hrd-hr30

[89CAL]

f**k. Like I said, NOONE in here is going to decide what the outcome is. Its pointless arguing like this.....

Just wait till the f**king appeal and then everyone will know

[wolverine]

The FIA should just stick a 30psi electronic release valve on everyones inlet manifold and be done with it

They should just give them 100kg of fuel....

[sh@un]

They should just give them 100kg of fuel...

at the start of the race, then during a refuelling....

[Roy]

So just like stewards saying tuned mass dampers were legal and then the FIA over turned their own stewards at the ICA.. So is that like being found innocent only to have an appeal at the higher body overturn anything decided by race stewards.

Like I said, stewards can be over ruled....technical directives can be ruled to be correct but so can another interpretation of the technical regulations and the ICA have the final word

AND thats it from me....I know I am right...doesnt matter what you think

Webber is running the Porsche at Silverstone this week...may not even bother with washed out Malaysian race

oh...and just read Hrner interview on James Allens site...

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/03/red-bulls-horner-confident-that-team-will-get-melbourne-points-back-at-appeal/

“We are appealing on the grounds that we are extremely confident that we have not broken the rules, that we haven’t exceeded the 100kg/hour of fuel that is permitted to be utilised by the car and the engine,” he said.

“Our whole case is on the fact of which reading is correct. We have a [FIA] sensor that is drifting and isn’t reading correctly versus a fuel rail that we know is calibrated and we know that hasn’t varied throughout the weekend. We haven’t broken the Technical Regulations. That we haven’t exceeded the fuel flow limit and that the sensor, which hopefully we will be able to demonstrate in the appeal, is erroneous.”

Although Technical Directives – the secretive documents issued by the FIA to teams to clarify and update interpretations of rules on complex technical areas – are considered by many F1 teams to supersede the technical regulations, Horner said that his team doesn’t see them that way, that they are more of an “opinion”.

The role of Technical Directives in governing F1 will be tested at the appeal hearing.

I dont like their chances either but I have read a few SKKY journos, Gary Anderson etc talk about how grey technical directives. Lowden also questioned that its more practice and in the sports interest to follow the directives rather than legal and if challenged could be a dangerous ruling for F1

[wolverine]

at the start of the race, then during a refuelling....

Yes great idea!!!

...but the FIA will probably give everyone a 100kg/hr restrictor on the refueling rig which RBR won't use and then we are back to square one.

ps. McLaren will still have issues with the left rear wheel nut regardless

Edited March 26, 2014 by wolverine

[hrd-hr30]

AND thats it from me....I know I am right...doesnt matter what you think

that's the way, don't let facts cloud your opinion!

Edited March 26, 2014 by hrd-hr30

[Hertz Donut]

...and the past few pages show exactly why F1 is a lawyer's sport.

[Roy]

OH wait there is more...from a vested party of course!

Speaking exclusively to AUTOSPORT, Horner said: "Technical directives are not of regulatory value."

"They are the opinion of the technical delegate - as was made clear in the Pirelli case [the Mercedes secret test], which clearly stated that opinions of Charlie are not regulatory

"It [them being opinions] is even stated on the bottom of the directives now, that these do not have a regulatory value."

[hrd-hr30]

it is easy to make up shit about what is and isn't written on documents no-one except the teams and FIA. It seems highly unlikely Horner is telling the truth about the TD's stating they are not of regulatory value, considering the FIA Stewards' Findings. If the FIA disqualified them based on a document which explicitly states "holds no regulatory value", they are bigger arse-clowns than I believe possible.

http://www.formula1blog.com/f1-news/fuel-sensor-debate-heats-up-in-hot-malaysia/

Horner: So when you are faced with that dilemma of having a sensor that you believe to be erroneous, and a fuel rail that you believe to be entirely reliable, and you are racing for position with an engine already down on power compared to your opponents, what do you do?

says it all - this is why they broke ranks and stopped using the sensor's (corrected) flow rate, that every other team was using. To gain a power advantage to stay ahead of the McLarens.

Edited March 26, 2014 by hrd-hr30

[djr81]

http://www.formula1blog.com/f1-news/fuel-sensor-debate-heats-up-in-hot-malaysia/

says it all - this is why they broke ranks and stopped using the sensor's (corrected) flow rate, that every other team was using. To gain a power advantage to stay ahead of the McLarens.

You mean they ignored a directive based on erroneous readings so that they would not be disadvantaged in comparison with other teams. Hardly the same thing.

[hrd-hr30]

For one thing it was him that said it - they were fighting for position with a more powerful opponent and they decided to ignore the mandated fuel flow meter.

The language he uses is interesting too:

...a sensor that you believe to be erroneous...

...Do you believe unreliable information being given?...

They are not saying they can prove the sensor was wrong, just that they believe it was unreliable.

You also have to wonder if he's playing silly buggers with the 100kg per hour limit. The rules only imply that is the maximum flow rate at any instant. The letter of the law says a maximum of 100kg per hour. In physics and engineering, "mass flow rate", the term used in the rules, is the mass of a substance which passes a given point per unit of time. The given unit of time in the rules is per hour. The SI unit is KG/sec. So if you only used 100kg of fuel over an hour's duration, despite exceeding that as a maximum flow rate at times, you could adamantly state you did not break the 100kg/hr limit according to your injectors and that the reading from the FIA sensor must therefore be erroneous and unreliable. He's not saying its wrong, and they never exceeded that flow rate at times of less than an hour's duration. He's saying the FIA sensor is erroneous in that it reports on an incorrect time unit - most likely the SI kg/sec rather than the rule's kg/hr. That's my opinion.

Edited March 27, 2014 by hrd-hr30

[djr81]

For one thing it was him that said it - they were fighting for position with a more powerful opponent and they decided to ignore the mandated fuel flow meter.

The language he uses is interesting too:

They are not saying they can prove the sensor was wrong, just that they believe it was unreliable.

You also have to wonder if he's playing silly buggers with the 100kg per hour limit. The rules only imply that is the maximum flow rate at any instant. The letter of the law says a maximum of 100kg per hour. In physics and engineering, "mass flow rate", the term used in the rules, is the mass of a substance which passes a given point per unit of time. The given unit of time in the rules is per hour. The SI unit is KG/sec. So if you only used 100kg of fuel over an hour's duration, despite exceeding that as a maximum flow rate at times, you could adamantly state you did not break the 100kg/hr limit according to your injectors and that the reading from the FIA sensor must therefore be erroneous and unreliable. He's not saying its wrong, and they never exceeded that flow rate at times of less than an hour's duration. He's saying the FIA sensor is erroneous in that it reports on an incorrect time unit - most likely the SI kg/sec rather than the rule's kg/hr. That's my opinion.

You should find the word instantaneous in the FIA stuff somewhere. Otherwise 100kg/hour is meaningless. I mean the FIA are sh!t, but surely not that sh!t?

[89CAL]

So who's tipping what for the Malaysian GP?

I'm quietly thinking Mercedes are going to have an engine failure of some sort, something about Hamiltons interviews since Melbourne make it seem like he/they are not entirely confident with the engine he will be using

If Rosberg's has the same potential issue then being the engine that has done more km, there might be a problem with his car

Or they might walk away with this one again, who knows.

Will get to see some real power comparisons with the long Sepang straights at least. See how the Ferrari stacks up to the Merc, I think the Renault is behind so we will get to see that for sure or not as well

Hoping Ferrari have made a step forward, hope Kimi has a better run

[hrd-hr30]

1-2014 TECHNICAL REGULATIONS 2014-01-23_0.pdf

ARTICLE 5 : POWER UNIT

5.1 Engine specification :

5.1.1 Only 4-stroke engines with reciprocating pistons are permitted.

5.1.2 Engine cubic capacity must be 1600cc (+0/-10cc).

5.1.3 Crankshaft rotational speed must not exceed 15000rpm.

5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.

No other mention of fuel flow rates in the Technical Regulations.

[djr81]

No other mention of fuel flow rates in the Technical Regulations.

Well you could make the same argument on engine rpm - but it only revved to 20,000rpm for ten seconds etc etc. Or indeed any other parameter they choose to measure that is a measure per unit of time. It has to be instantaneous to make any sense.